mrsilkunderwear
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 151 (100%)
Funny thats coming from you. I am still awaiting several pages of responses from you in a different thread.Not seeing a response.
Funny thats coming from you. I am still awaiting several pages of responses from you in a different thread.Not seeing a response.
And there's absolutely no utility in the answer you gave, which was my question because I didn't want to write something that long without purpose. Which is what you wanted. Which is kind of a dick thing to ask for.You're the one that stepped up and thought you'd give answering DD's question a shot. If you simply cannot provide an answer, then that's fine. It's a complicated question that some folks are content with saying "more" or "less" and leaving it at that, in spite of the fact that they never really provided any kind of an answer.
Again, "no, u" isn't an answer.
Which is all well and good, but has zero to do with the question: "How much should the rich pay in taxes?"
There are a couple of ways you could answer this - and it would depend on your individual philosophy as to how taxes should be assessed and paid. You could say that people should pay X% per year based on $Y of income. X% per year based off of $Y Net Worth. You could use either (or both) of those on some sort of sliding-scale (X% for the first $Y, 2X% for the next $2Y, etc.) You could say folks should pay $Y per-head flat rate. You could go with a consumption-based tax where it's X% per $Y spent. It could be a production-tax, like a VAT Tax. There's all kinds of possibilities. It comes down to the question DD asked - "How much should the rich pay in taxes?"
It's a very complicated question - and I don't purpose to have the exact answer (though I do have a few thoughts that feed into the answer)... but then, I never asked for the answer. DD did. And, about a month ago, someone else asked the same question, and a certain someone on this forum jumped down that person's throat for asking the question because blah, blah, trolling, blah, blah, blah. I was just curious if that same someone was going to speak up when DD asked the same question.
By the by, since you seem to be stuck on Regan - when Regan's tax levels where in place, what was Federal spending per-capita then (adjusted for inflation) and what is Federal spending per-capita now?
I don't think we have any history on this board so you and I can have a discussion without referencing anything else. I'm looking for a response to the following "statement" about Obamacare:Funny thats coming from you. I am still awaiting several pages of responses from you in a different thread.
Then it seems to me that you should call out the guy who asked the question to begin with.And there's absolutely no utility in the answer you gave, which was my question because I didn't want to write something that long without purpose. Which is what you wanted. Which is kind of a dick thing to ask for.
So you like to randomly pick on people? Now how do you think a libertarian republican feels about Obamacare?I don't think we have any history on this board so you and I can have a discussion without referencing anything else. I'm looking for a response to the following "statement" about Obamacare:
Obamacare will help American small business because it offloads the responsibility for health care (ie a non core competency to a small business) to the government and the employee, leaving the business to focus on its business.
Thoughts?
...I just thought perhaps you and I could have a conversation.So you like to randomly pick on people? Now how do you think a libertarian republican feels about Obamacare?
I don't recall who asked it in an earlier thread, but I remember it being asked and a certain someone blasting them (you?) for even daring to ask. Which is why it was funny that DD asked the same question in this thread and not a single person calls him out on it... One person even makes a half-assed attempt at answering it, realizes that he doesn't really want to, then calls me names... when I wasn't even the one who asked to begin with.I think I was the one who asked for an "acceptable" top level tax rate.
I know this wasn't asked to me, but I'd like to give some thoughts on it.I don't think we have any history on this board so you and I can have a discussion without referencing anything else. I'm looking for a response to the following "statement" about Obamacare:
Obamacare will help American small business because it offloads the responsibility for health care (ie a non core competency to a small business) to the government and the employee, leaving the business to focus on its business.
Thoughts?
How can I have a decent conversation with a tool? So far every liberal I have engaged seems to get his/her panties in the bunch on this forum. Emotion rules over logic. Your comment proves it....I just thought perhaps you and I could have a conversation.
Ya'll are shit.
someone said:We will remember record deficit spending, nearly doubling the national debt in 8 years. Shattering the reckless legacy of spending and its damage by Reagan.
In the days of google you'd think people wouldn't copy an online article word for word and not even bother to cite it implying it's their own work...Now that more than 2 million people have signed up for private insurance plans created by President Barack Obama's healthcare law, a crucial next check-up for the new marketplace will be to see how old customers are.
Early data from a handful of state exchanges shows the administration needs more young adults to sign up in the next three months to help offset costs from older enrollees and prevent insurers from raising their rates.
The market won't attract enough young people to keep it financially viable, putting more pressure on government funds to compensate for any insurer losses. (In other words this was just one big huge waste of time and you were better off under your old plan)
Young people got suckered. The ACA is relying on you paying more than you would in regular market conditions to pay the way of the chronically ill and older Americans. You kids spend your youth whining that the rich should have their wealth redistributed to the "less fortunate" via taxation. Well, welcome to healthcare redistribution. Where the youth (regardless of wealth) are paying more for the benefit of others. Do you feel like you are doing your part for paying someone else's way? Are you enjoying your high premiums and higher deductibles? Just checking, because the next target is your employer sponsored "private" 401K or other retirement plan. When they come take that from you to give to others that didn't plan for their retirement you should feel wonderful that your hard earning and invested money is going toward someone else's lack of preparation.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Now that more than 2 million people have signed up for private insurance plans created by President Barack Obama's healthcare law, a crucial next check-up for the new marketplace will be to see how old customers are.
Early data from a handful of state exchanges shows the administration needs more young adults to sign up in the next three months to help offset costs from older enrollees and prevent insurers from raising their rates.
Critics of Obama's Affordable Care Act say the market won't attract enough young people to keep it financially viable, putting more pressure on government funds to compensate for any insurer losses.
Funny. For someone who's all about citing sources, you'd think he'd realize that the ORIGINAL source for this article (Reuters, as RvB pointed out) doesn't automatically tag a copy/paste with a "read more..." tag.See, the funny thing I noticed when I copy and pasted the same article you did was that I had to actually remove a "read more at Business Insider" tag that automatically followed the copy and paste. I had already cited them so I had no need to leave that in. You, on the other hand, would have had to intentionally remove that tag. It's not like you can say you were just too busy to cite it or that you forgot, you had to literally do extra work to remove the fact that it was pre-cited for you.
How is it plagiarizing anyway if you truly believe that was my intent? I am not writing some college thesis where I need a Works Cited page. I am proving why Obamacare is a bad plan. And everything in that article is factual anyway so its not like I am making it up. If you even bothered to read my post you can clearly see when I started to offer my opinion and the stuff before sounded like a news story. It is not my fault you can't read correctly.So plagarism is no big deal if you do it a lot? Or is it that plagarism is a-ok if at least one third of the work is your own commentary.
See, the funny thing I noticed when I copy and pasted the same article you did was that I had to actually remove a "read more at Business Insider" tag that automatically followed the copy and paste. I had already cited them so I had no need to leave that in. You, on the other hand, would have had to intentionally remove that tag. It's not like you can say you were just too busy to cite it or that you forgot, you had to literally do extra work to remove the fact that it was pre-cited for you. Not to mention the article itself started with "NEW YORK (Reuters)" which you would have had to have left out as well.
Extra spaces? There's one extra line break, how in the world does one extra line break point to a citation. Even if you never went to college, high school teaches you to cite your work.
http://consumerist.com/2014/01/22/target-dropping-health-insurance-for-part-time-employees/Target is just the latest large retailer to shift part-time employees off company-provided insurance plans and toward the online exchanges. Large businesses like Sears/Kmart, Petco, Home Depot and Darden Restaurants (Olive Garden, Red Lobster, LongHorn Steakhouse) have all recently announced similar changes in health care coverage.
You can thank Obamacare for that, it literally is ruining businesses and it is unaffordable.